stock_hot_tweet_xq

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns a pandas.DataFrame and specifies the parameter domain, but does not disclose any further behaviors like pagination or data scope limitations. This is acceptable but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, containing a title, URL, parameter information, and return type—all in a few lines. Each element adds value, though the structure is more docstring-like than a coherent sentence. It is concise and front-loaded with the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basics: source, parameter choices, and return type. However, it does not explain what the returned DataFrame contains beyond 'discussion ranking', leaving out column details or semantics. This is a moderate gap given the lack of an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema only defines a string parameter with a default, providing no description or enum. The description's ':param symbol: choice of {"本周新增", "最热门"}' fills that gap by listing the exact allowed values, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource as Xueqiu's Shanghai/Shenzhen stock market discussion hot ranking, with the title and URL providing clear context. Although there is no explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', the intent is clear and it is distinguishable from similar tools (e.g., stock_hot_rank_em) by the 'xq' source and '讨论排行榜' focus.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or contextual recommendations. The only hint is the parameter choice, which is not usage guidance. This is a clear gap for a tool with many hot-ranking siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.